Linux-Advocacy Digest #219, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Interesting article (.)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Mike Martinet)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Nigel)
Re: Someone, help me (please) (Exit: PhatLinux versus Windows 98)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Mike Martinet)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Peformance Test (Mike Martinet)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:05:59 +0100
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Träger wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Lars Träger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you're forgetting one of the most common PC Unix problems; most
> > > > > Unix-like systems politely ignore incorrectly jumpered drives - say, a
> > > > > slave device on a channel with no master device.
> > > >
> > > > You are assuming that Kookis knows anything about what he is talking
> > > > about - he doesn't. He had a few too many grenades explode in close
> > > > proximity.
> > > >
> > > > Lars T.
> > >
> > > DUMBASS IDIOT did NOT correctly configure his EASY-AS-PIE
> > > ATAPI CD-ROM...and he's blaming the problem on Linux, rather than his
> > > own incompetance.
> > >
> > > This has ZERO to do with grenade explosions.
> >
> > See what I mean? He's just like the NTrolls, absolutly no help, blaming
> > it all on the user.
>
> You're saying that MIS-configuration hardware by putting the jumpers in
> the wrong place is the software's fault?
... followed by more lame-ass babble ...
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:13:39 +1300
> You know, guys, I think we're all being had. Have you ever carried on
> a conversation with that ELIZA program that pretends to be a
> psychologist? Well, Chad kind of reminds me of that. I think we've all
> been suckered in by someone's AUI* experiment.
>
> *AUI= Artificial Un-Intelligence
if (statement_against_x)
promote_x();
if (proof_asked_for)
{
claim_proof_posted_previously();
mindlessly_promote_x();
}
if (losing_argument) // Should really be 'when'
{
rabidly_promote_x();
change_subject();
randomFUD();
}
add in a loop for the slow degradation of quality, and NNTP posting
ability, and there you have it ;)
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:14:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Surenko writes:
>> Is this what you are saying?
> With the addition of animal psychology (both theoretical and practical) and
> math, yes. I guess I must be a behavioral sophist.
Then sir, we have something to disscuss!
After reading "Zen and the Art of Motocycle Maintainance" and
"lila" I relilize it is difficult to disscuss the "true" nature
of things with a sophist. After all, he would say, truth is ilrelevent,
what matters is quality (what works).
But the matter of consistancy has always bother me about sophistry.
Why do diverge populations tend to have the same ideas at the same
time. Now this line of reasoning can't be used to argue against
sophistry, but it bugs me that most cultures tend to belive simmilar
things.
How do you think this works?
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:52:22 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>>is not science.
> This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
> be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
> other theory and observations.
> For example, the Big Bang theory, obviously not repeatable, but consistent
> with existing theory and observation.
Theories are NOT "repeatable"! Experiments are. The big bang theory has
testable consequences. For example, it predicts that the universe will
be saturated with background radiation: the cooled bang. And it is.
It also predicts the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe, and
by golly it gets it righti, as far as we can measure.
> In math and logic, there is only 3 state of any statement: consistent /
> absolutely true, inconsistent / absolutely false, or unproven.
Well, there are more subtle distinctions too! You forgot to say
"relative to what".
> In natural sciences, a hypothesis will considered a theory when it shown
> consistent with some theory and observation. As more observation and
No. A theory has predictive power and testable consequences. A
hypothethis in itself requires the framework of a theory in order to
make sense and be testable. If it tests OK, and refutations fail,
then its a fair enough approximation to truth for the moment.
> Therefore having an idea of god is not only Ok, but even scientific, as
> long as that idea is proven to have no inconsistency with all other
> scientific theory and observations. :-)
Well, this is true. It's a theory with no testable consequences. I.e.
it's consistent with the rest of our theories (which doesn't make it
true! Both the continuum hypothesis and the negation of the continuum
hypythesis can be shown consistent with all of the rest of set theory,
for crissake).
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:01:32 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
>>> deaf ins sound?
>> They have good evidence for the existence of light. They can perform
>> experiments to verify its existence. For example, they can get two
>> seeing friends to stand 100 yards apart. They can whisper to one
>> and ask him to raise a handkerchief, or drop it to the ground. They can
>> then walk the 100 yards to the other friend, and ask him if they
>> had whispered the command to raise or drop to the other friend. Repeat
>> to taste.
>> Then try it when the two friends are separated by a tall building.
> How does he know that all his friends are not really voices in his
> head?
He doesn't. That is a separate theory that requires separate testing.
> What is the difference between a "fixpoint theorem" and a "faith
> in a belief"?
Fixpoint theorems can be proved purely formally, without any recourse to
semantics. "every contraction mapping in a locally compact metric space
has a fixed point". "Every increasing continuous functional in a
distributive lattice has a fixed point", etc. etc. For the locally
compact metric space take R3 and you get the "hairy ball theorem" (comb
a ball and there is a bald patch - actually an even more interesting
pair of points too). For the lattice take the sentences of an axiom
system, connected by the entailment relation, and for the functional
take the provability operator, and you find that there's an interesting
sentence ...
Peter
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:23:29 -0700
The recent quotes by Jim Allchin and Steve Ballmer bring a couple
thoughts to mind:
1) It could be that he and Ballmer are in some sort of struggle to say
the most ridiculous, inflammatory (read, 'ballsy') thing to the press.
Given what I've read about the MS corporate climate, they may really
just be engaging in a sort of one-upsmanship and then laughing about it
up their sleeves.
2) They really could be trying to get a handle on how to compete against
Open Source. By putting out opinions like this, they can then review
the response to try and determine where to begin.
The whole thing's pretty fascinating. Especially the chronology of
quotes - I read in succession (and I'm sorry, I don't have the
supporting links right at hand)
-a quote saying that Linux wasn't a threat
-a quote saying that Windows would overtake Linux in the server market
-a quote saying that Linux was MS's biggest threat (Ballmer)
-and now a quote saying that Linux ought to be outlawed.
All in the last few weeks. Amazing.
MjM
Bob Tennent wrote:
>
> news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
>
> Poor Microsoft! They're running to the government to protect their business
> model against those property-stealing anti-American open-sourcers. Boo-hoo-hoo!
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:29:53 +0000
> There is still value in a "better mousetrap". Genuine innovation
> will remain something difficult to quickly replicate. Free
> Software only threatens "last years crap" sold as "this year's
> innovation".
>
MS have been selling crap copies of last year's innovation for years
DOS - copied from CPM
Win9x taskbar - copied from 1987 acorn archimedes
IE - built using code stolen from spyglass mosaic (originated from NSCA
mosaic same as netscape).
NT - partly copied from VMS
MS office assistant - stolen from lemon dog software.
The list of so called MS innovation stolen from other companies is almost
endless - they should be pleased about having more sources to steal from.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Someone, help me (please) (Exit: PhatLinux versus Windows 98)
Date: 15 Feb 2001 22:29:42 GMT
Johan De Clerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can i really install Phat Linux without losing Windows?? (Or do I to
> repartition my HD?).
> If yes (on the first question): do you have to install it via Windows-itself
> or via MS-DOS?
Yes, you can install Linux without destroying Windows. The simplest way is
when you have a free partition and there shouldn't be a problem installing
Linux on it without any damage to Windows. Probably now a lot of Wintrolls
will come out from under their stones and claim that they destroyed their
Windows partition doing this. But the only way I can imagine how they did
it is that they installed Linux over the Windows partition, so don't try
it when you either dead tired or drunken ;-) Actually, making a backup
before doing any of such potentially dangerous operation is always a GOOD
idea!
As far as I know (but I never tried it) you can even use Linux from a
Windows partition for a start.
HTH, Jens
--
_ _____ _____
| ||_ _||_ _| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ | | | | | | AG Moebius, Institut fuer Molekuelphysik
| |_| | | | | | Fachbereich Physik, Freie Universitaet Berlin
\___/ens|_|homs|_|oerring Tel: ++49 (0)30 838 - 53394 / FAX: - 56046
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 15 Feb 2001 22:05:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>
>> Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
>> accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
>> for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
>> direct knowledge. Is it really that far a stretch to believe
>> Christ existed based on the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
>> than to believe black holes exist.
>
> science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
> is not science.
The Big Bang is not science? Surely not all of science is based
on experimental repeatability. Much else is dependent upon
observation - surely paleontology and paleogeology. But none of this
really addresses the question of faith in science - the degree to
which the scientist must rely on the observations and experiments
of others, on others' experiences. People who know any science
at all believe in electrons, yet few have done the experiments
that, for instance, determine the mass of an electron (I have)
yet accept the values posted for those.
>
>> Just as the religious rely on the collective experiences of those
>> who have gone before, so does science. You certainly do not
>> perform experiments to prove every article of science you encounter,
>> you rely on faith that your predecessors performed their experiments
>> correctly.
>
> science is a method. you give a hypothesis. you do an experiment to
> show that the hypothesis holds.
No, that's the scientific method which is not applicable to all
branches of science.
you give people enough information to
> reconstruct the experiment. if others can reproduce it, you begin to
> accept the hypothesis may be true. if enough other experiments based
> on extrapolation of the hypothesis prove to work, then you start to
> trust it more and more.
The point is, you accept far more things than you have ever seen
the evidence for. You do that on trust, if not faith.
>
>> Following the cold fusion debate, you can witness the
>> uproar tha ensues when experiments appear to challenge the preheld
>> beliefs. The reaction of physicists is to deny and attack the new
>> evidence just as fundamentalists attack evolution.
>
> they also tried to repeat the cold fusion experiment and could not get
> the same results. if they had been able to duplicate the results,
> then the physicists would have accepted it and gone on to revise their
> textbooks.
>
If you believe that, you didn't follow the debate closely enough.
Physicists immediately attacked the results simply because the
Pons and Fleischmann weren't physicists (their experiment wasn't
looking for excess heat, they just noticed it and tried to
explain it). Many of the failed experiments did not use a setup
similar to P&F.
>> If cold fusion yet proves out and is not the likely result of poorly
>> conducted experimentation, the howls from physicists will equal the
>> howls of those who originally shouted down the germ theory of
>> Pasteur or the works of Charles Darwin.
>
> somehow i doubt this. if cold fusion is shown to work (by a
> repeatable experiment), it would merely *reinforce* the value of the
> scientific method. if you destroyed the scientific method, then yes,
> maybe there would be consternation. but your example doesn't do
> that.
>
> plus, it'd be great fodder for the pubilications -- tenure for the
> professors, theses for the graduate students. what's not to like?
>
It won't do wonders for hot fusionists and their funding.
> einstein fixed newtons theory and the scientific world did not
> collapse. quantum theory is certainly weird and the scientific world
> did not collapse. of course there were always a few resistors, but
> their protests only make the theory stronger should it survive.
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Robert Surenko writes:
>> >>> It also takes faith to believe the Universe is as appears to the 5
>> >>> senses.
>> >
>> >> I don't.
>>
>> But the universe isn't as our senses report it. For instance,
>> you and I and a European bee may look at flower and think it is black.
>> The European bee, in fact, will ignore it. But an African or Africanized
>> bee sees a wider spectrum than either humans or their European
>> counterparts. So the African bee will visit that flower.
>>
>> There are those who can "hear" radio waves - they hear the Northern
>> Lights as waves booming onto the shore - which may explain the
>> large number of people who began having problems hearing a background
>> noise after the ELF arrays began their work. Their are additional
>> senses we do not have (the electric field sense shared by electric eels
>> and some sharks, echolocation) and some (orientation) which may be
>> shared by only a percentage of humans (in experiments in which people
>> were blindfolded and soundproofed, then driven around in circles
>> to deliberately disorient them. They were then asked to point to their
>> point of origin. Most pointed in random directions. But s significant
>> minority were able to point in the correct direction better than 80%
>> of the time).
>>
>> >
>> > Well, there are issues of sanity involved here. Doubting the evidence of
>> > your own senses leaves you in a difficult position.
>>
>> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
>> deaf in sound?
>>
>> Insanity is a
>> > probable outcome (although that is a sane response to the predicament).
>> >
>> >>> Because of this it also takes great faith to not believe ( or believe
>> >>> not) in God.
>> >
>> >> Nonsense.
>> >
>> >>> Science and logic are a religion.
>> >
>> >> More nonsense.
>> >
>> > Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
>> > religious beliefs as a basis for your programming.
>>
>> Faith is essential in programming a computer. Unless you are actually
>> programming the microcode of the CPU, you rely upon the belief that
>> what you write will do what you want, a belief that is all to often
>> shaken. Eveen the assemby writer must interact with other people's
>> work if only the BIOS, and must have faith that the work they did
>> was correct. Quite simply, we cannot confirm every postulate
>> we use in life. We cannot even confirm that ever postulate is ultimately
>> confirmable.
>>
>> I tend to view that
>> > as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
>> > believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
>> > experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
>> > a computer.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, so does alcohol and coffee.
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>> --
>> Dan Mercer
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
>>
>
For an interesting take on the five senses, I think it was HG Wells
who wrote a short story expounding on the old axiom - in the land of the
blind the one eyed man is king. In his story, the two eyed man who
stumbles on a sightless tribe is helpless. They completely dismiss
his "ravings" about vision and color. They sleep in the day when it is
hot and work the fields in the cool of the night. The sighted man
is totally helpless.
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 15 Feb 2001 22:11:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Mercer writes:
>> So, if you had personal experience of something inexplicable by science,
>> would you be more likely to believe that Science doesn't have the answers
>> for everything?
>
> I have found that experiences of "something inexplicable by science" are
> generally explicable by common sense. And I already know that science
> (note the absence of capitalization) doesn't have the answers for
> everything.
>
>> I know that there are at least 3 incidents in my life that can't be
>> explained by any Physical laws I know.
>
> There are a number of incidents in my life such that were I to assume that
> they actually occurred as I recall them I would conclude could not be
> explained by the laws of physics. The preponderance of evidence, however,
> supports my fallibility over the existence of the tooth fairy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Well, the tooth fairy notwithstanding, if you directly observed something
inexplicable by science, you would rather disbelieve your observation
than what you were told was true. And yet you don't believe you are
religious?
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:35:35 -0700
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, I don't particular agree with his comments in particular, though he
> >> does have a partial point. Open Source does threaten commercial software
> >> innovation. Why should a company (not just MS) invest millions into R&D
> >> when open source peoplewill come along and offer a free version?
> >
It's interesting to note that the whole phenomenon of Microsoft vs. Open
Source most likely wouldn't exist had IBM not (albeit, unthinkingly)
'open-sourced' the PC architecture.
MjM
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:32:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>> Or how about this one...
>> Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments for their infinite
>> amusment and joy. These little fairies are from the 5th dimension
>> and feel their greatest acomplishment is that they have faked out the
>> humans who now believe that all objects fall at the same rate.
>> All smart little fairies know that heavy things fall faster.
>> Prove it.
> We don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. You'll find it
> rather hard, mind you, because your theory has no testable
> consequences that I can see. You can believe it if you like, but
> it's a nontheory; its predictive power is nil.
No, I'm sorry, You have speculated that the Scientific Method is
somehow different than a faith. Even impliying that "truth" can
be approched. I don't see how you can prove this and have mearly
given you some alternatives to the data you are observing.
The burden is on you to "prove" the Scientific Method, without
using it in a proof.
Your only alternative is to admit that the Scientific Method
is indeed a faith.
>> We are all asleep in little pods. We are hooked to a virtual reality
>> program called the Matrix...
> Ditto. If you can think of a test for this, fine, propose it, and test
> it.
No, this is a possible explaination to the data you have observed.
You have postulated that the Scientific Method produces knowlege.
Please design an experiment if you wish, however, I also see your
theory as having no testable consequences.
>> My point is that Science is based on some fudemental principles
>> that can not be proven, such as the belief that repeatability
>> means something.
> Uh, repeatability is the basic minimum required for anything to be worth
> troubling with. If you can't repeat your bug, I'm not going to
> bother with it (unless it is a really disastrous bug). COme back when
> you can, but until you can, I'm going to call you a charlatan, and it's
> up to you to prove me wrong.
So, as another poster pointed out, the big bang can't be proved because
it can't be repeated? Has JFK really been shot?
> Peter
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:37:04 -0700
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> Yeah, those things do wonders to your picture quality if you use
> 1600X12000 or even 1800X1350, like I do.
> But, the image is no more blurred than in a bad TV set, so why bother
>
> Peter
>
I had the same problem at first. Then I got shielded video cables.
Cost a little bit more, but no more weirdness.
MjM
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:34:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>>>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>>>is not science.
>> This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
>> be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
>> other theory and observations.
>> For example, the Big Bang theory, obviously not repeatable, but consistent
>> with existing theory and observation.
> Theories are NOT "repeatable"! Experiments are. The big bang theory has
> testable consequences. For example, it predicts that the universe will
> be saturated with background radiation: the cooled bang. And it is.
> It also predicts the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe, and
> by golly it gets it righti, as far as we can measure.
So how do we know that JFK was shot?
> Peter
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:37:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is the difference between a "fixpoint theorem" and a "faith
>> in a belief"?
> Fixpoint theorems can be proved purely formally, without any recourse to
> semantics. "every contraction mapping in a locally compact metric space
> has a fixed point". "Every increasing continuous functional in a
> distributive lattice has a fixed point", etc. etc. For the locally
> compact metric space take R3 and you get the "hairy ball theorem" (comb
> a ball and there is a bald patch - actually an even more interesting
> pair of points too). For the lattice take the sentences of an axiom
> system, connected by the entailment relation, and for the functional
> take the provability operator, and you find that there's an interesting
> sentence ...
Funny, but that does not answer the question.
> Peter
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:38:32 GMT
Bob Tennent wrote:
>
> news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
>
> Poor Microsoft! They're running to the government to protect their business
> model against those property-stealing anti-American open-sourcers. Boo-hoo-hoo!
So far, the Linux Today article on this has hit over 8,000 reads, and
the story isn't 2 hours old yet. Slashdot is so buried they aren't
allowing any more reads to their server. M$ couldn't have unified the
Linux community faster if they had done so on purpose.
--
WARNING TO ALL PERSONNEL:
Firings will continue until morale improves.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
